- This topic has 19 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
At the 2.20 York (25/3/2013) Mad Moose literally took no part in the race. He ambled out of his stalls and went no further.
The question is should punters on horses who refuse to race get their money back, or is it just part of racing that should be accepted?
I think that they should as they not given a fair chance to win.
Punters in such a predicament should be pointed to and laughed at and possibly imprisoned if they break the law in retaliation at the ridicule, but not refunded.
The trainer should speak to the stewards before the race. The possibility of now racing should be noted in the program. Bets should be void if he does not race. Just a race lover’s opinion.
If fancying a bet on one of these horses with history of such things I’d advise doing it with Paddy Power. Is Mad Moose owned by the same connections as another one who refused to race a bit(Chaninbar)?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
It’s one of the risks in racing and the price of these beasts usually reflects the risk.
It’s a bit of a bummer the first time a horse does it but thereafter punters should be aware.
So no, definitely no refunds.
I think in this case you should know what you’re backing. Mad Moose is a box of frogs on four legs.
However, i think bookies should have a rule in place regarding horses not crossing the line ( jumps ) or leaving the stalls ( flat )
I think it would be beneficial to them in the long term – encourages customer faith and loyalty.
Just changing the subject slightly if you bet each way in an 8 runner and it goes down to 7 should you get your money back or be offered a refund.
I bet each way and I when I place my bet there are 8 and three places I do not get asked when they change the t&c’s because of a non runner and there are only two places.
I think if you bet there should be some way of asking do you want to keep you the same bet.
Bets aren’t refunded if a horse dumps his rider during the race, are they? It’s just one of the caveats of betting on live animals.
On the continent regular problem horses can still race but are not counted for betting purposes. This allows owners/trainers/jockeys to run for the prize money but without the betting public risking them not jumping off. Sometimes if they are particularly bad in the gate they are loaded to the outside. I’ve always thought this is something we could look into here.
Just changing the subject slightly if you bet each way in an 8 runner and it goes down to 7 should you get your money back or be offered a refund.
I bet each way and I when I place my bet there are 8 and three places I do not get asked when they change the t&c’s because of a non runner and there are only two places.
I think if you bet there should be some way of asking do you want to keep you the same bet.
I presume you missed this:-
At the 2.20 York (25/3/2013) Mad Moose literally took no part in the race. He ambled out of his stalls and went no further.
The question is should punters on horses who refuse to race get their money back, or is it just part of racing that should be accepted?
I think that they should as they not given a fair chance to win.
Race begins when the stalls open/tape goes up and at that point every horse has "a fair chance to win". Temperament is all "part of racing". Price offered about Mad Moose and any other horse allows for it doing something like this. With well known subversives (like Mad Moose) you’re getting a much bigger price because there’s a greater chance of bad behaviour. But even with those of an apparent reasonable attitude, the chance (admittedly a lesser one) of misdemeanors has been allowed for in odds offered.
If punters are to get their money back then it comes out of winning punters pockets as a Rule 4. Why should a punter who’s studied form and allowed for temperament in his/her assessment – be disadvantaged?
It could’ve happened on previous starts. Yet punters were rewarded for taking a chance on Mad Moose’s mind with a winner @ 28/1 and each way second @ 20/1. Inflated prices offered purely because of a recalcitrant nature. Yet I don’t see punters complaining about inflated prices on those days. If willing to profit from a horse’s temperament then punters should be relaxed about losing out when things don’t go right.
Value Is EverythingFrom March 2011 there are now circumstances where you get you money back after the start but not if horse simply refuses to race:
"Also in effect since 30 March is a new Rule of Racing that gives power to the Raceday Stewards to declare a horse a non-runner after the race has been run. This provision only applies to Flat races and only in certain circumstances. Examples are when starting stalls do not open but false start isn’t called, or if a jockey is not on the horse when the stalls are released.
Consequently, bets on such horse(s) which have palpably lost all chance at the start will be fully refunded to punters and, where applicable, Rule 4 deductions would apply to all other bets."
I agree with all the comments about the risk of a horse ambling out of the stalls and then not running. As seasoned racegoers/punters we all know that horses have different temperaments and the price sometimes reflects this
but
it still seems like bad PR for the sport when you try to explain this to a first time racegoer who never gets a run for their hard earned cash.
Will it encourage them to "Come Racing" again as Big Mac used to say!!
At the 2.20 York (25/3/2013) Mad Moose literally took no part in the race. He ambled out of his stalls and went no further.
The question is should punters on horses who refuse to race get their money back, or is it just part of racing that should be accepted?
I think that they should as they not given a fair chance to win.
Race begins when the stalls open/tape goes up and at that point every horse has "a fair chance to win". Temperament is all "part of racing". Price offered about Mad Moose and any other horse allows for it doing something like this. With well known subversives (like Mad Moose) you’re getting a much bigger price because there’s a greater chance of bad behaviour. But even with those of an apparent reasonable attitude, the chance (admittedly a lesser one) of misdemeanors has been allowed for in odds offered.
If punters are to get their money back then it comes out of winning punters pockets as a Rule 4. Why should a punter who’s studied form and allowed for temperament in his/her assessment – be disadvantaged?
It could’ve happened on previous starts. Yet punters were rewarded for taking a chance on Mad Moose’s mind with a winner @ 28/1 and each way second @ 20/1. Inflated prices offered purely because of a recalcitrant nature. Yet I don’t see punters complaining about inflated prices on those days. If willing to profit from a horse’s temperament then punters should be relaxed about losing out when things don’t go right.
Just changing the subject slightly if you bet each way in an 8 runner and it goes down to 7 should you get your money back or be offered a refund.
I bet each way and I when I place my bet there are 8 and three places I do not get asked when they change the t&c’s because of a non runner and there are only two places.
I think if you bet there should be some way of asking do you want to keep you the same bet.
More common are 16+ runners handicaps reducing to 15 runners, which the bookmaker could honour the 4th place for PR especially now Betting Exchanges exist like BETFAIR who will payout on the original number of places intended for that race.
Mad Moose clearly has talent (only 14lbs inferior to Sprinter Sacre on January form at Cheltenham!!) but he must be close to a ‘final warning’ surely? It does look really bad in the eyes of the casual punter/racegoer.
I’m sure there’s a rule about repeated RR’s – anyone know?
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.